This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: memory predicates and constraints

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Roman Zippel <zippel at linux-m68k dot org>
Cc: gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 18:59:55 -0700
Subject: Re: memory predicates and constraints
References: <41041AFE.6090808@linux-m68k.org> <20040726001743.GA11362@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407260229030.20634@scrub.home>

On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 02:42:03AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Where is the problem to use "m" instead of "QU<>" (with various 
> alternatives), when at the time we get to reload the operand has already a 
> correct mode for a memory_operand?

I don't know for sure.  But I stand by my claim.


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: memory predicates and constraints
  - From: Roman Zippel
- Re: memory predicates and constraints
  - From: Roman Zippel

References:
- memory predicates and constraints
  - From: Roman Zippel
- Re: memory predicates and constraints
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: memory predicates and constraints
  - From: Roman Zippel

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]